Effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori Treatments According to Antibiotic Resistance.

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotic resistance is one of the main factors that determine the efficacy of treatments to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of first-line and rescue treatments against H. pylori in Europe according to antibiotics resistance. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, international registry on the management of H. pylori (European Registry on H. pylori Management). All infected and culture-diagnosed adult patients registered in the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology-Research Electronic Data Capture from 2013 to 2021 were included. RESULTS: A total of 2,852 naive patients with culture results were analyzed. Resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones was 22%, 27%, and 18%, respectively. The most effective treatment, regardless of resistance, were the 3-in-1 single capsule with bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline (91%) and the quadruple with bismuth, offering optimal cure rates even in the presence of bacterial resistance to clarithromycin or metronidazole. The concomitant regimen with tinidazole achieved an eradication rate of 99% (90/91) vs 84% (90/107) with metronidazole. Triple schedules, sequential, or concomitant regimen with metronidazole did not achieve optimal results. A total of 1,118 non-naive patients were analyzed. Resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones was 49%, 41%, and 24%, respectively. The 3-in-1 single capsule (87%) and the triple therapy with levofloxacin (85%) were the only ones that provided encouraging results. DISCUSSION: In regions where the antibiotic resistance rate of H. pylori is high, eradication treatment with the 3-in-1 single capsule, the quadruple with bismuth, and concomitant with tinidazole are the best options in naive patients. In non-naive patients, the 3-in-1 single capsule and the triple therapy with levofloxacin provided encouraging results.

Empirical Second-Line Therapy in 5000 Patients of the European Registry on Helicobacter pylori Management (Hp-EuReg).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: After a first Helicobacter pylori eradication attempt, approximately 20% of patients will remain infected. The aim of the current study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of second-line empiric treatment in Europe. METHODS: This international, multicenter, prospective, non-interventional registry aimed to evaluate the decisions and outcomes of H pylori management by European gastroenterologists. All infected adult cases with a previous eradication treatment attempt were registered with the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology-Research Electronic Data Capture until February 2021. Patients allergic to penicillin and those who received susceptibility-guided therapy were excluded. Data monitoring was performed to ensure data quality. RESULTS: Overall, 5055 patients received empiric second-line treatment. Triple therapy with amoxicillin and levofloxacin was prescribed most commonly (33%). The overall effectiveness was 82% by modified intention-to-treat analysis and 83% in the per-protocol population. After failure of first-line clarithromycin-containing treatment, optimal eradication (>90%) was obtained with moxifloxacin-containing triple therapy or levofloxacin-containing quadruple therapy (with bismuth). In patients receiving triple therapy containing levofloxacin or moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin-bismuth quadruple treatment, cure rates were optimized with 14-day regimens using high doses of proton pump inhibitors. However, 3-in-1 single capsule or levofloxacin-bismuth quadruple therapy produced reliable eradication rates regardless of proton pump inhibitor dose, duration of therapy, or previous first-line treatment. The overall incidence of adverse events was 28%, and most (85%) were mild. Three patients developed serious adverse events (0.3%) requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Empiric second-line regimens including 14-day quinolone triple therapies, 14-day levofloxacin-bismuth quadruple therapy, 14-day tetracycline-bismuth classic quadruple therapy, and 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy (as a single capsule) provided optimal effectiveness. However, many other second-line treatments evaluated reported low eradication rates. ClincialTrials.gov number: NCT02328131.

Reduced Serological Response to COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with IBD is Further Diminished by TNF Inhibitor Therapy; Early Results of the VARIATION study [VAriability in Response in IBD Against SARS-COV-2 ImmunisatiON].

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Evidence suggests patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] receiving TNF antagonists have attenuated response to vaccination against COVID-19. We sought to determine the impact of IBD and of various medications for treatment of IBD on antibody responses to vaccination against COVID-19. METHODS: Patients with IBD [n = 270] and healthy controls [HC, n = 116] were recruited prospectively, and quantitative antibody responses were assessed following COVID-19 vaccination. The impact of IBD and of medications for treatment of IBD on vaccine response rates was investigated. RESULTS: Of HC, 100% seroconverted following complete vaccination with two vaccine doses; 2% of patients with IBD failed to seroconvert. Median anti-spike protein [SP] immunoglobulin [Ig]G levels following complete vaccination in our IBD cohort was significantly lower than among HC [2613 AU/mL versus 6871 AU/mL, p ≤0.001]. A diagnosis of IBD was independently associated with lower anti-SP IgG levels [ß coefficient -0.2, p = 0.001]. Use of mRNA vaccines was independently associated with higher anti-SP IgG levels [ß coefficient 0.25, p ≤0.001]. Patients with IBD receiving TNF inhibitors had significantly lower anti-SP IgG levels [2445 AU/mL] than IBD patients not receiving TNF inhibitors [3868 AU/mL, p ≤0.001]. Patients with IBD not receiving TNF inhibitors still showed attenuated responses compared with HC [3868 AU/mL versus 8747 AU/mL, p = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD have attenuated serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Use of anti-TNF therapy negatively affects anti-SP IgG levels further. Patients who do not seroconvert following vaccination are a particularly vulnerable cohort. Impaired responses to vaccination in our study highlight the importance of booster vaccination programmes for patients with IBD.

Cancer in inflammatory bowel disease 15 years after diagnosis in a population-based European Collaborative follow-up study.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To determine the occurrence of intestinal and extraintestinal cancers in the 1993-2009 prospective European Collaborative Inflammatory Bowel Disease (EC-IBD) Study Group cohort. PATIENTS-METHODS: A physician per patient form was completed for 681 inflammatory bowel disease patients (445UC/236CD) from 9 centers (7 countries) derived from the original EC-IBD cohort. For the 15-year follow up period, rates of detection of intestinal and extraintestinal cancers were computed. RESULTS: Patient follow-up time was fifteen years. In total 62/681 patients (9.1%) [41 with ulcerative colitis/21 with Crohn's disease, 36 males/26 females] were diagnosed with sixty-six cancers (four patients with double cancers). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 9/681 patients [1.3%] (1 Crohn's disease and 8 ulcerative colitis). The remaining 53 cancers were extraintestinal. There was a higher prevalence of intestinal cancer in the Northern centers compared to Southern centers [p=NS]. Southern centers had more cases of extraintestinal cancer compared to Northern centers [p=NS]. The frequency of all observed types of cancers in Northern and in Southern centers did not differ compared to the expected one in the background population. CONCLUSIONS: In the fifteen-year follow up of the EC-IBD Study Group cohort the prevalence of cancer was 9.1% with most patients having a single neoplasm and an extraintestinal neoplasm. In Northern centers there were more intestinal cancers while in Southern centers there were more extraintestinal cancers compared to Northern centers. In this IBD cohort the frequency of observed cancers was not different from that expected in the background population.